SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15450

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Devashis Baruah, J
Samsul Hoque – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
WP(C)/683/2025|WP(C)/678/2025|WP(C)/443/2025|WP(C)/344/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Hussain
For the Respondents: J. Handique, U. Das, J. Roy, S. Sarmah

An appellate or revisional authority cannot expand the scope of its jurisdiction in review proceedings to adjudicate matters or subject matter not originally raised or included in the initial proceedings, and must strictly observe the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 151 - Scope of revision and review - Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by passing orders regarding land parcels not subject to initial proceedings - Principles of natural justice demand notice to affected parties in supervisory proceedings.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners represent Khatiandars challenging orders passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. The dispute originated from an application for the deletion of names of pattadars and Khatiandars concerning specific Dag numbers in a survey record. The Board of Revenue issued an ex-parte order in a revision petition, which was later reviewed. The review order expanded the scope to include additional land plots not part of the original dispute.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Board of Revenue’s review order was partially illegal because it addressed land plots that were beyond the scope of the original revision proceedings (Misc. Case No.06/2012-13). The court clarified that the Board must restrict its adjudication to the land pertaining to the initial dispute.

Issues: Whether the Assam Board of Revenue could expand the scope of a review petition to include land plots not part of the original revision application and whether the ex-parte revision order violated principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction cannot traverse beyond the parameters of the original proceedings; an appellate or revisional body must adhere to the scope of the case and ensure affected parties are heard in accordance with natural justice.

Result: Partially allowed; the Board of Revenue is directed to hear the Revision Petition afresh, restricted strictly to the relevant land parcel.

Table of Content
1. overview of the parties, land plots, and procedural history of the revenue dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. summary of stakeholders' contentions regarding the scope of revenue board jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. court determination on procedural irregularities and jurisdictional overreach in review orders. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. directions given by the court to restrict scope of revision to original land parcels. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 12 in all the writ petitions.

2. The four writ petitions which are presently taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order assail the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA(DBR)(RVW)/2022.

3. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 are the Khatiandars of various plots of land. The said petitioners have been issued Khatian No.80 over a land admeasuring 12 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.27 of Patta No.79 under village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam. The said petitioners have also been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.77 over a plot of land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 katha 5 lechas covered by Dag No.31 of Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

4. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.683/2025 have been issued a Khatian being Khatian No.60 over a plot of land admeasuring 3 bighas 1 katha 15 lechas covered by Dag No.28 under KP Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II under Mouza-Golakganj in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

5. The writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.678/2025 had purchased the land from the son of the Khatiandar admeasuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 17 lechas under Khatian No.19 of Dag No.40 under Khiraj Patta No.79 of village Dumardaha Part II within the Golokganj Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

It has been submitted by Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that all the lands are presently within the Gauripur Revenue Circle in the district of Dhubri, Assam.

6. The records reveal that the Private Respondents filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dhubri on 17.04.2012 which was registered as Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 seeking deletion of the names of some of the pattadars and the rayoti Khatiandars recorded in the survey record and the correction of the survey records. A perusal of the application which is Annexure-A to the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 would show that the Private Respondents sought the deletion of the names of Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi whose names have been shown as pattadars and the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025. The said application further mentions the land wherein such deletion was sought, i.e. the land admeasuring 24 bighas 2 kathas 5 lechas covered by Dag No.2/163(old)/31(new) under village Dumardaha Part-II under Golokganj Revenue Circle which was covered by Rayoti Khatian No.77.

7. Pursuant to the said application, proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Officer, Golokganj Revenue Circle by passing an order on 17.04.2012. On 28.05.2012, the Assistant Settlement Officer disposed of Misc. Case No.06/2012-13 striking out the names of the pattadars, namely, Smti. Jayasree Gogoi and Smti. Subasree Gogoi as well as the names of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.344/2025 and WP(C) No.443/2025 in so far as the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top